Wyatt Redfox v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Wyatt Redfox,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-13765
Order
Date of Order: 4/1/2021
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-20-05703CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
Wyatt N. Redfox seeks appellate review of the trial court’s order denying
his proposal for bail release. For the reasons explained here, we affirm the trial court’s
order, but we direct the superior court to reassess the monetary component of the bail
when it approves a suitable third-party custodian.
In July 2020, Redfox was arrested for an incident involving his significant
other, M.W., and her aunt, R.O. The State alleged that Redfox struck both M.W. and
R.O. and that he stabbed M.W.’s leg with a knife. When he was arraigned on charges
related to this incident, the judge set bail in the amount of a $1,500 cash performance
bond and ordered him to remain on house arrest with electronic location monitoring.
The judge also ordered Redfox not to possess weapons and not to contact M.W. or R.O.
Ten days later, on July 30, 2020, a grand jury indicted Redfox for these
offenses as well as for additional offenses that occurred on June 27, 2020, when Redfox
allegedly strangled M.W. in a car until she blacked out and then smashed her forehead
into the dashboard. The indictment charged Redfox with two counts of second-degree

Redfox v. State, File No. A-13765
04/01/2021 – pg. 2
assault and five counts of third-degree assault.1 The State also filed an information
charging Redfox with unlawful contact and violating conditions of release.2 These
charges were based on the State’s claim that Redfox contacted M.W. on July 28, 2020,
in violation of the no-contact order.
At a bail hearing that was held on August 4, 2020, both parties asked the
court to modify the bail order. Redfox asked the court to remove the house arrest
requirement because he did not have stable housing and to reduce his bail to an
unsecured bond. The State asked the court to increase the bail to a $10,000 cash
performance bond, arguing that the lower bail amount did not deter Redfox from
contacting M.W. and did not take into account the incident that arose on June 27, 2020,
when Redfox allegedly strangled M.W.
M.W. appeared by telephone at the bail hearing and requested that Redfox
not be released on bail. She stated that she believed that Redfox would continue to try
to contact her and that she would not be safe if Redfox were released.
The trial court granted Redfox’s request to remove the house arrest
requirement, but it increased the bail to a $5,000 performance bond and added a
condition requiring a third-party custodian.
At subsequent bail hearings, the trial court denied Redfox’s requests to
reduce the performance bond amount and also denied his request to remove the third-
party custodian requirement. In ruling on Redfox’s requests, the trial court noted
1 AS 11.41.210(a)(1), AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(B), and
AS 11.41.220(a)(5), respectively.
2 AS 11.56.750 and AS 11.56.757(a), respectively.

Redfox v. State, File No. A-13765
04/01/2021 – pg. 3
Redfox’s extensive criminal history, which includes several convictions for assault over
the last four years, including at least one prior conviction for assaulting M.W. The court
emphasized the nature of the pending charges, including the allegation that Redfox
contacted M.W. in violation of the court order. Because of Redfox’s criminal history,
the charges against him, and his contact with M.W., the court found that Redfox’s release
on electronic monitoring needed to be combined with a cash performance bond and
monitoring by a third-party custodian. The court therefore denied Redfox’s request to
modify bail, and Redfox now appeals from the court’s decision.
On appeal, Redfox first argues that requiring a third-party custodian as a
condition of release on bail violates both the state and federal constitutions. He also
argues that, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, denial of his requested bail
modification amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 12 of the Alaska
Constitution.
But Redfox did not make these constitutional arguments to the trial court.
Under Alaska law, a litigant who wishes to raise an issue on appeal must show that the
issue was adequately preserved in the lower court — which means not only that the
litigant presented the issue to the lower court, but also that the lower court ruled on that

Redfox v. State, File No. A-13765
04/01/2021 – pg. 4
issue.3 Because Redfox never asked the trial court to consider these claims, the claims
are waived.
Redfox next argues that the trial court erred by requiring conditions of
release in addition to the $5,000 cash performance bond. According to Redfox, if a court
requires the posting of cash bail, the court may not impose any additional conditions of
release — in other words, cash bail may only be ordered as an alternative to, and not in
addition to, any other conditions of release.
Redfox’s understanding of the law is incorrect. Under AS 12.30.011(b),
a judicial officer has the authority to impose any condition, or combination of conditions,
provided that those conditions constitute the least restrictive means to “reasonably ensure
the person’s appearance and protect the victim, other persons, and the community.”
Accordingly, we find no merit to Redfox’s claim that the $5,000 cash performance bond
precluded the imposition of any other bail conditions.
Redfox also argues that the bail set in his case is excessive. Both the United
States and Alaska Constitutions prohibit the imposition of “excessive” bail.4 Excessive
bail is that which goes beyond the amount actually necessary to fulfill the purposes of
3 Hollstein v. State, 175 P.3d 1288, 1290 (Alaska App. 2008); see also Bryant
v. State, 115 P.3d 1249, 1258 (Alaska App. 2005) (“Normally, an appellant may only appeal
issues on which he has obtained an adverse ruling from the trial court.”); Mahan v. State, 51
P.3d 962, 966 (Alaska App. 2002) (“To preserve an issue for appeal, an appellant must
obtain an adverse ruling.”).
4 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.

Redfox v. State, File No. A-13765
04/01/2021 – pg. 5
bail — i.e., to reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance and the safety of the
community.5
There are two different components of Redfox’s bail that he challenges:
(1) the third-party custodian requirement; and (2) the $5,000 cash performance bond.
(Redfox does not challenge the PED electronic monitoring and we therefore do not
address this component.)
Absent legal error, we review a trial court’s decision to impose particular
bail conditions for an abuse of discretion.6 Under this standard of review, an appellate
court will uphold the trial court’s decision unless that decision was “arbitrary, capricious,
manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper motive.”7
Here, we find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the third-party
custodian requirement. The trial court found that a third-party custodian was necessary
to reasonably ensure the safety of the community, and in particular the safety of M.W.
In making this finding, the trial court relied on Redfox’s extensive history of assaultive
conduct, including a prior conviction for assaulting M.W., as well as the seriousness of
the current allegations. The trial court also relied on M.W.’s significant fear of the
defendant and the fact that Redfox continued to make efforts to contact M.W. even after
5 See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951); Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 (Alaska
1971); Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
6 AS 12.30.030(a).
7 Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (internal quotations omitted).

Redfox v. State, File No. A-13765
04/01/2021 – pg. 6
being ordered not to do so by the court.8 Given Redfox’s prior violation of the court
order, and all of the surrounding circumstances of his criminal history and his
relationship with M.W., we conclude that the trial court could reasonably find that the
in-person supervision and accountability that a third-party custodian provides was
necessary in this case.
We are less certain about the amount of monetary bail. If released, Redfox
will be under extremely heavy supervision and will be monitored by both PED electronic
monitoring and a third-party custodian. Given this unusual dual coverage, it is not clear
what purpose setting the bail above Redfox’s ability to pay serves.9
We recognize, however, that the trial court is currently operating without
full information about the kind of third-party custodian that Redfox will propose or how
strong that third-party custodian will be. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court
should reassess the monetary component of the bail order once it has approved a third-
party custodian. If, after approving a third-party custodian, the court continues to believe
8 See AS 12.30.027(a) (requiring the court, when setting conditions of release,
to specifically consider the safety of the alleged victim in a case involving domestic
violence).
9 See Torgerson, 444 P.3d at 237 (“While the Alaska Supreme Court has
declared that a criminal defendant is not necessarily entitled to bail in an amount the
defendant can post, a judge may not set bail in an amount that goes beyond that which is
necessary to fulfill the purposes of bail — i.e., to reasonably assure the defendant’s
appearance and the safety of the alleged victim, other persons, and the community.”); Reeves
v. State, 411 P.2d 212, 216 (Alaska 1966) (noting that while there is no absolute right to
release without bail, “[i]t would be unconstitutional to fix excessive bail to assure that a
defendant will not gain his freedom.”); see also Alaska Const. art. I, § 11.

Redfox v. State, File No. A-13765
04/01/2021 – pg. 7
that the monetary bail should be set outside Redfox’s ability to pay, the court shall make
particularized findings as to why it is setting the monetary component of Redfox’s bail
order outside his ability to pay, given the existence of both PED electronic monitoring
and supervision by a third-party custodian.10
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the superior court’s bail order, but we direct the
superior court to reassess the monetary component of the bail after it approves a suitable
third-party custodian.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Easter
Trial Court Clerk - Anchorage
Distribution:
Mail:
Redfox, Wyatt
Email:
Chleborad, Terisia K.
10 See Brangan v. Commonwealth, 80 N.E.3d 949, 964-66 (Mass. 2017)
(recognizing that a “particularized statement as to why no less restrictive conditions will
suffice,” including “how the bail amount was calculated,” is appropriate in light of due
process concerns and “because holding a defendant on an unaffordable bail amount defeats
bail’s purpose of securing pretrial liberty”).